Network News

Get the Morning Fix and the new Afternoon Fix delivered to your inbox or mobile device for easy access to the top political stories of the day. All you need is one click to get Morning Fix and Afternoon Fix!

Ohio-Texas Two-Step: Afternoon Update

Voting has been underway for hours in Texas and Ohio (as well as in Vermont and Rhode Island) in what is widely regarded as the most consequential vote of the Democratic presidential primary fight between Sens. Barack Obama(Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton(N.Y.).

With the stakes so high, the two campaigns are already seeking to set the landscape for tomorrow and beyond.

The Obama campaign started the day off with an email statement from spokesman Bill Burton that sought to paint tonight's results as a failure for Clinton unless she is able to make a significant dent in the Illinois senator's pledged delegate lead -- an unlikely event.

"The Clinton campaign said this race was all about delegates and that they would be tied or ahead by morning," said Burton. " But despite the 20-point lead in Ohio and Texas that Senator Clinton had just two weeks ago, we will still be well ahead in delegates tonight and they will have failed at achieving their plainly stated goals." (This line of argument echoes the sentiments expressed by Obama campaign manager David Plouffe on a conference call with reporters yesterday.)

For their part, the Clinton campaign seemed to already be looking beyond today's primaries with a conference call this morning designed to (yet again) shine a light on the relationship between Obama and real estate developer Tony Rezko who is standing trial in Chicago.

"As Democrats are prepared to begin voting...there are many, many, many more questions than answers for Senator Obama in regard to the Rezko matter," said Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson. "Democrats have a right to know these questions when considering who will be the best nominee to confront Senator McCain in the fall."

Time and again during the call, Wolfson and deputy communications director Phil Singer sought to highlight what they alleged were a number of unanswered questions from Obama about his relationship -- personal and professional -- with Rezko. Wolfson accused Obama of "conspicuously avoid[ing] giving answers to the most basic questions about that relationship" during a press conference on the trail yesterday.

Asked what they expected out of tonight's votes, Wolfson sounded downright exuberant. "We are bullish about our prospects for this evening," he said. "We believe tomorrow we will have a very strong case to make to Democratic primary voters in upcoming states."

What the Clinton campaign clearly believes is that tonight's vote represents a confluence of two major factors: an end to Obama's 11-contest winning streak and a heightened examination of the Illinois senator's public record.

According to Tom Rosenstiel, the director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, the Clinton campaign's relentless effort to cast the media as biased toward Obama appears to be paying off. Between Feb. 25 and March 2, Obama was a "significant or dominant" factor in nearly seven in 10 campaign stories -- the highest amount of coverage for any candidate so far this year, said Rosenstiel.

"The media scrutinized everything from his legislative record to his connections to Louis Farrakhan, and frequently addressed the question of whether journalists have been too soft on the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination," writes Rosenstiel.

The narrative of the day seems to favor Clinton. But, results will be coming in over the next eight hours that could easily change the storyline.

Clinton was forced Monday to give back a whopping $850,000 raised by convicted scam artist Hsu after learning his investment ventures were being probed by the FBI as a potential Ponzi scheme.

She earlier gave to charity $23,000 Hsu donated himself after reports revealed he fled sentencing for a $1 million scam in California in 1992.

Yesterday, the campaign insisted it did all it should to vet Hsu after California businessman Jack Cassidy warned in June that Hsu's investment operation was fishy. Cassidy e-mailed his tips to the California Democratic Party, which forwarded them to the Clinton campaign.

We should also be asking questions about Mrs. Clinton's security. How could the Secret Service let someone like Hsu within 50 yards of Hillary? Or were their objections overridden?

But the question the Justice Department is going to want answered is who in Mrs. Clinton's campaign knew about the Cassidy warning and then failed to adequately vet Hsu's shady dealings? Or, more troubling, discovered Hsu's history and still took the money anyway.

Meanwhile, See Dubya at Hot Air has dug into Clinton's donor list and pulled out several contributions from Rosenman's family as well as others connected with his investment company:

The idea that The Media has not been supportive of Obama throughout this entire campaign is ridiculous. The Cable News/Talk shows are doing it at this very moment, each and every one of them. Hillary, most likely, will win three of the four today, and don't forget she has won most of the bigger states and would win them in the GE, but Obama would have a much harder time and probably would lose a couple of them.

bsimon,
I don't know if there is much new beef but the new news is that the Rezko trial is going on and Obama's name will probably come up in it (in a very peripheral way) - that is why there is the current attention to it. There still seem to be some unanswered questions and some discrepancies. And while it may have gotten some local Chicago press last year, Obama was not the odds on favorite to become POTUS at that time. The fact that he portrays himself as a different kind of politician, one who is above special interests and doing favors, means that these kinds of stories will get play. These two, Rezko and Obama, are linked, for better or worse. Now is HRC playing this up? Of course. What is wrong with that?

I did not read the Trib endorsement but op-ed and news are two different things. I don't think Rezko should preclude an endorsement (especially given HRC's baggage), but I do think the story was, is and will continue to be newsworthy.

"And during the course of that sermon, I was introduced to someone named Jesus Christ. I learned that my sins could be redeemed and that if I placed my trust in Christ, He could set me on the path to eternal life."

Proud- Defensive vs. Offensive, that's the difference that makes it not hypocrisy. He's not using his religion as a weapon, he's defending himself against outrageous accusations that he's not a Christian.

your cracking up proud. your chains are cut. If you refuse to leave the cave no one pities you anymore. you made your choice. Now you people must face the consequences of said choice

Back to the subject at hand

"And the winner is....
By: John Amato @ 3:15 PM - PST

With Limbaugh telling his peeps to vote for Hillary in Texas and the media suddenly examining the way it's covered Obama-I'm having this little feeling that our media is hoping Clinton wins Ohio and Texas by big enough margins so the primary keeps churning along.

Download | Play Download | Play

Limbaugh has been actively urging his Texas listeners to cross over and vote for Clinton in that state's open primary Tuesday, arguing it helps the Republicans if the Democratic race remains unsettled for weeks to come.

"I want Hillary to stay in this...this is too good a soap opera," Limbaugh told fellow conservative talk-show host Laura Ingraham on Fox News Friday. He reiterated the comments on his Monday show and replayed the exchange with Ingram.

Go and vote for your candidate today. I hope we have a winner after tonight so we can focus in on the real problem: McCain and BushCo. and what they have and will do to our country

Admit it, Secular America. If Mike Huckabee had said something like this on the campaign trail you'd be locking and loading faster than you could hum John Lennon's lyric "Imagine all the people, Living life in peace":

"And during the course of that sermon, I was introduced to someone named Jesus Christ. I learned that my sins could be redeemed and that if I placed my trust in Christ, He could set me on the path to eternal life."

And you'd probably be thinking again of applying for Canadian citizenship -- just 'fess up: you were scouting properties in northern Manitoba back around Thanksgiving 2004 -- if the former governor of Arkansas declaimed:

"And whenever I hear stories about Americans who feel like no one's looking out for them, like they've been left behind, I'm reminded that God has a plan for his people. . . . But it's a plan He's left to us to fulfill."

But these are not Huck's words. They were, in fact, pronounced by Sen. Barack Obama.

He delivered these remarks this past Friday to about 150 Latino Evangelical and Catholic clerics at the University of Texas at Brownsville.

These pious musings have not aroused as much as a peep of protest from nonbelievers and Church-State separatists. (Compare this to the former governor of Arkansas who enraged Secular America , AND LIBERAL FIXISTAS, when he suggested that we amend the Constitution to God's standards).

This absence of outrage goes a long way in demonstrating how thoroughly secularism in this country is entwined with, and supportive of, political liberalism.

For years, the received (albeit flawed) wisdom held that a secularist was a liberal and vice versa. But as the 2008 campaign has shown, Democrats with presidential aspirations are strenuously trying to decouple that association.

"For the most part, that fell on deaf ears. The only thing that has changed over the past couple of weeks is that the right-wing noise machine, which now sees Obama as the likely Democratic nominee, began complaining just as bitterly that the media is "in the tank" for Obama. That is what moves them. As Harris himself wrote in his own book, it is Drudge -- not Howard Wolfson or SNL -- who rules their world"

"Three recipients of controversial 11th-hour pardons issued by former President Bill Clinton in January 2001 have donated thousands of dollars to the presidential campaign of his wife, Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., according to campaign finance records examined by ABC News, in what some good government groups said created an appearance of impropriety." http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=3866786

"Norman Hsu is one of the leading political fund-raisers in the country this year. In fact, many fund-raisers say he is one of a small handful of people capable of raising more than $1 million -- a major feat considering the maximum donation allowed by an individual for 2008 races is $4,600 per candidate.

Many "HillRaisers" -- people who rustle up at least $100,000 for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign -- are dwarfed beside Mr. Hsu (pronounced "Shu"). Several people involved in Democratic presidential fund-raising say Mr. Hsu, an apparel executive, has raised well over $1 million for the New York senator's presidential campaign, making him one of the top 20 Democratic fund-raisers in the country. The Clinton campaign doesn't disclose such details and declined to comment for this story."http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118835199704811801.html

Seriously, is this the debate the Clinton camp wants (unless thier only goal is to undermine Obama's new politics message by showing he's almost as shady as the Clintons...).

"Tuesday March 4, 2008 16:07 EST
The ornery pride of the political journalist
The Politico's Jim VandeHei and John Harris claim today that the press is being much harder on Obama now because they've heard all the complaints -- from Saturday Night Live and the Clinton camp -- that they've been too soft on Obama. According to the Politico duo, reporters, being the proud and ornery professionals that they are, simply cannot abide accusations that their coverage of a political figure is too uncritical. You see, nothing makes them as aggressive as that does:

Never underestimate the power of shame in journalism. "SNL's" mockery went straight to reporters' insecurities. Being accused of falling "in the tank" for a candidate is the journalistic equivalent of a nerdish high school freshman getting a wedgie from the jocks.

It is no coincidence that the past few days have seen reporters acting tough with stories about Obama's relationship with a Chicago influence-peddler, his sincerity in opposing NAFTA and his stiff-arming of questions from the press. . . .

[Howard Wolfson] holds a conference call every day to tell reporters they are worthless and weak (not to mention fat, lazy and stupid -- no way to go through life) because of their soft Obama coverage. Again, reporters' self-justifying mechanism kicks in when someone says they are being too tough. But their self-loathing mechanism kicks in when someone says they are being too weak. Read Dana Milbank's account of Monday's Obama press conference to see if Wolfson's hectoring is working.

The answer: Damn straight.

Oh, absolutely. Nothing changes press behavior more than accusations that they're "in the tank" for someone. After all, it's only been eight short years since the national press corps fell in love with then-candidate George W. Bush, depicted him as the swaggering, friendly, regular, down-home American male with whom you'd want to have a beer -- unlike that pompous, annoying, boring liar, Al Gore.

Once they got him elected, they then proceeded to click their heels and loyally salute for the next several years or so in the presence of the manly Commander-in-Chief War Hero, as they unquestioningly marched behind him into Iraq, mindlessly trumpeting every word that came out of his mouth, too afraid (according to the NYT's Elisabeth Bumiller) even to ask him questions, and abdicating every basic journalistic duty to such an extent that they voluntarily inflicted on the country what Salon's Gary Kamiya called "one of the greatest collapses in the history of the American media."

After that, they swooned in unison over how manly and powerful the Leader was when he pranced around that aircraft carrier declaring -- five years ago -- that we had Won the War. They then spent the 2004 election season glorifying the Conquering War Hero while mocking his opponent as a wind-surfing, flip-flopping, French subversive loser and his running mate as a vain, hair-obsessed, effeminate weakling. The next few years were spent overlooking, justifying and dismissing away revelations that the President had tortured people, broken the law repeatedly, spied on Americans without warrants, promulgated theories of presidential omnipotence, sent detainees to other countries to be abused, and had his top officials repeatedly and transparently lie to Congress.

Just as VandeHei and Harris say, the one thing reporters better not hear is that they're "in the tank" for someone, or boy -- watch out -- that will really get their hackles up and they'll begin to get very aggressive, very adversarial. This is a real proud and ornery group and if someone thinks they're being insufficiently scrutinizing, why, all hell is going to break lose. As VandeHei and Harris put it so appropriately, reflecting the hard-core draft-beer toughness of their journalistic colleagues: "Damn straight."

VandeHei and Harris are far too modest to mention it, but there are two other sterling examples showing the core toughness and profound professional pride of our political press corps. It's been said since 2000 that the media reveres John McCain, that they're his base, that they can barely contain their glee and happiness when he deigns to address them.

But just behold all the great investigative reporting, all the reactive tension, all the aggressive scrutiny those claims have spawned. Why, just this weekend, these prideful reporters went to "McCain's ranch" and, in exchange for having him cook them some ribs and chicken and give them a grand tour of the property, agreed to have the event just be a fun, playful social affair where no real questions would be asked (as though the Straight Talk Express tour is ever something other than that). The one thing these professionals can't tolerate is when it's said they're in the tank for someone.

And then today we learned that, last night, Hillary Clinton's campaign actually rented a men's bathroom and assigned the traveling press corps to sit there to do their work. It was an actual, fully functioning public bathroom -- complete with running urinals and stalls, situated just a few feet from where they were told to sit and work for five hours . . . and eat. Many of them, including Time's Karen Tumulty and The Los Angeles Times, actually contentedly described what happened and even posted pictures of the bathroom they all worked in.

And what did these proud professionals do? Exactly what they were told to do -- they sat there, just a few feet from urinals and bathroom stalls, and worked for hours and ate the dinner they were given. The pictures and video are really quite shocking. Seriously avoid looking at them if you've just eaten. As Kagro at Kos wrote:

Is there anything the political press corps won't roll over for?

They served them food in there. And they ate! . . . .

And I can appreciate the fact that these people have to file on pain of losing their jobs, but seriously. Would you sit in there? Would you eat in there? Would you ask anyone else to?

Oh, and here's some Alpo for you, too, Mr. Respected National Political Reporter! And you'd better eat it, or you'll lose "access."

This may be the most depressing thing I've ever seen involving people in business attire.

And this is where we get our "news," America.

This isn't the most significant story ever, but it might actually be the most symbolically revealing.

The reality is that the Clinton campaign has been complaining bitterly for months and months that the media has not subjected Obama to any real critical scrutiny. For the most part, that fell on deaf ears. The only thing that has changed over the past couple of weeks is that the right-wing noise machine, which now sees Obama as the likely Democratic nominee, began complaining just as bitterly that the media is "in the tank" for Obama. That is what moves them. As Harris himself wrote in his own book, it is Drudge -- not Howard Wolfson or SNL -- who rules their world.

I just need to repeat the boastful Vandehei/Harris claim: "Being accused of falling 'in the tank' for a candidate is the journalistic equivalent of a nerdish high school freshman getting a wedgie from the jocks." That's true except when the candidate for whom they're "in the tank" is the jock giving them the wedgie -- the faux-frat boy George Bush who earned their reverence by taunting and mocking them, and his fighter-pilot successor-in-tough-guyness John McCain who does the same -- in which case they are perfectly content, even happy, with their lowly status, apparently even if it's right next to a urinal, literally.

Here's Margaret Carlson, then of Time Magazine, explaining why the press fell so deeply in love with candidate George Bush: "Bush knows how to push the buttons of your high school insecurity. . . .[Bush] wasn't just any old breezy frat brother with mediocre grades . . . He was proud of it."

The truth is the exact opposite of what VandeiHei and Harris said today. If the last couple of decades have demonstrated anything, it's that the press loves being weak and "in the tank," as long as it's in the tank to those whom they perceive to be powerful, which, for the past 15 years or so, has been the GOP power establishment. It's only when the people for whom they're in the tank begin instructing them to become more aggressive against others do they pay heed. That's all that has changed over the past couple of weeks -- they're now getting pushed around for being "too soft on Obama" by the only people to whom they actually listen, quite respectfully.

sORRY CC FOR THE LONG POST. TO GOOD FOR ME TO PASS OUT. tHIS SITE IS DONE TODAY ANYWAY.

What a crock, this is. We need a new news channel. a truthful one. one that speaks truth to the people. It would put rush hannity oreilly savage fox cnn msnbc, ALL out of business. Who's got the dough to put up? :)

As a military guy, I prefer to KNOW my enemy. Makes him an easier target to prosecute.

I don't agree with Obama on ANYTHING. But I ("think") I (at least) know where he stands.

McCain is a moving target - a snake who just might bite the very people who elected him, at first opportunity.

If I have the choice between 2 liberals, and only one of them is a Democrat, I'm inclined to vote D so that at least the same old, failed, broken, tired liberal policies get blamed on the correct party.

"Dribs and drabs of people's lives have a most unfortunate way of coming out in trials."

BUt it's all a bunch of what-if and maybes, with nothing other than a land deal where Obama paid more than the appraised value of the land that even has anything shady about it. He's got one corrupt donor with shady, how about all of Hillary's (one is on trial right now if memory serves)?

Well, when the race is contested, people turn out. A lot of Republicans take solace in the fact that Dems had higher turnout in 1988 but still lost the general - I think the fact that the R race was settled and the D race was contested factor heavily there. Since McCain is the nominee, some Republicans might vote strategically, either to get the candidate they'd be more comfortable with if McCain lost the general, or to nominate what they saw as the candidate easier to beat, or merely to keep the race going (which is why Rush came out and told Republicans to vote for Hillary this week). I think the strategic votes are all a wash in the end, the only ones who I think turn out in serious numbers are the ones who genuinely may cross over in the general (it's tough to get the average voter to turn out and vote against their party and for someone they hate). But, all those factors and the open primary/caucus systems and genuine excitement about Democratic prospects in November are driving up Democratic turnout and keeping Republican turnout low (at least now, before now it was dissatisfaction with the field...).

Chicago Sun-Times: Sen. Obama, time to call us about Rezko: (312) 321-2417

March 4, 2008

Jury selection began Monday in the trial of political influence peddler Tony Rezko. This would be the time -- before a single witness takes the stand -- for Barack Obama to finally share every detail of his relationship with Rezko.

Rezko stands accused of funneling state business to companies that lined his pockets and made campaign contributions to Gov. Blagojevich. Rezko allegedly directed $10,000 to Obama's 2004 campaign for the U.S. Senate.

The criminal charges against Rezko in no way implicate Obama in any wrongdoing, but they do raise the question of dealings between the two men.

As recently as Sunday, on ABC's "This Week" program, Obama's campaign manager, David Axelrod, insisted that Obama has fully responded to every question posed by reporters. But this is not so.

For months, Sun-Times investigative reporters have had a standing request to meet with Obama, face to face, to get answers to questions such as these:

â€¢ How many fund-raisers did Rezko throw for Obama?

â€¢ Obama is donating $150,000 to charity that Rezko brought into the campaign. But how much in all did Rezko raise?

â€¢ Did Rezko find jobs for Obama backers in the Blagojevich administration or elsewhere?

â€¢ Why did Obama only recently admit -- after Bloomberg News broke the story -- that Rezko had toured his South Side mansion with him in 2004 before he bought it?

Dribs and drabs of people's lives have a most unfortunate way of coming out in trials.

DonJasper asks
"What's up with this record turn-out business for a primary?"

That's a good question. I'd say its largely an uncovered story. Certainly the uptick in participation by the youth vote has been covered, lightly. But I wonder if the total participation can be attributed solely to the youth vote? I think not. It would be interesting to see a more detailed study of the phenomenon.

What's up with this record turn-out business for a primary? I'll take it as a given that the buzz is coming from the democratic side, and the snoring you hear is people's interest in McCain? Or are legions of voters pouring in to vote for McCain.

Will McCain have trouble motivating his base to counter the buzz from his opponents? Who exactly is McCain's base I wonder?

What's up crisis. how are you doing sir. Looks like to much truth killed this site for the day. :)

That's the gop for you. School yard bullies. Only battle if they feel they can win. otherwise they hide, whine, complain about the deck stacked against them.

Were we crying months ago when we did not have speech? Did we cry when we got banned for supporting obama. When we were a joke to the fascists?

No we did not cry whine and complain. We fought for our place and voice. We can't back down now, bobby, when our work is starting to pay off.

These are the differances between the parties. A cult of robots, gop lawyers and propogandists. Whine cry and complain. Lie spin and discredit. Sabotage if you don't get your way.

they show their faces. We should nto fear the fascists. All we have to do is hold up a mirror. And call them out. they will then run and hide, as they cannot combat truths with lies and gossip. It's impossbile. that's why they must stack the deck. That is why they must ban those who they disagree. They cannot compeate.

The internet killed the gop. As long as we don't allow them to take the internet and our voice, we got them.

this battle against fascism has already been fought and won. once the truth got out into the world and fox was shown for what they are, rush hannity, their movement is done. It looks like they do not want their relevance back, by their actions.

Their choice. Let them have the irrelevance they've earned. do nto feel guilty. There are consequences to their actions. If not they will never change or grow. Force that change. To not do that sets presedence. Think about the future. Do not fear the gop gentlemen. The traitors shoudl not only fear us, but consequences to their actions.

do not get scared and back down. Stand strong. Thank you for your support of obama and American values, in such dire conditions. for a few years there were few of us fighting for this country. It was all up hill. Don;t waste that fight. Finish it. FINISH THEM! :)

Do not fear the fascists. they should fear justice and america and international law. We should nto fear them. for what? Are they going to get physical? I doubt it. The confederates. Like the red coats try. Stand strong with your country. If you do that, you cannot be defeated gentlemen.

What's crisis. Looks like to much truth killed this site for the day. :)

That's the gop for you. School yard bullies. Only battle if they feel they can win. otherwise they hide, whine, complain about the deck stacked against them.

Were we crying months ago when we did not have speech? Did we cry when we got banned for supporting obama. When we were a joke to the fascists?

No we did not cry whine and complain. We fought for our place and voice. We can't back down now, bobby, when our work is starting to pay off.

These are the differances between the parties. A cult of robots, gop lawyers and propogandists. Whine cry and complain. Lie spin and discredit. Sabotage if you don't get your way.

they show their faces. We should nto fear the fascists. All we have to do is hold up a mirror. And call them out. they will then run and hide, as they cannot combat truths with lies and gossip. It's impossbile. that's why they must stack the deck. That is why they must ban those who they disagree. They cannot compeate.

The internet killed the gop. As long as we don't allow them to take the internet and our voice, we got them.

this battle against fascism has already been fought and won. once the truth got out into the world and fox was shown for what they are, rush hannity, their movement is done. It looks like they do not want their relevance back, by their actions.

Their choice. Let them have the irrelevance they've earned. do nto feel guilty. There are consequences to their actions. If not they will never change or grow. Force that change. To not do that sets presedence. Think about the future. Do not fear the gop gentlemen. The traitors shoudl not only fear us, but consequences to their actions.

do not get scared and back down. Stand strong. Thank you for your support of obama and American values, in such dire conditions. for a few years there were few of us fighting for this country. It was all up hill. Don;t waste that fight. Finish it. FINISH THEM! :)

"Folks from now on, Obama-Rezko housing scandal will take front page story every day until general election. Voters like it or not. Even Obama official representative is attending and taking notes at the court hearings."

All of Obama's opponents have been hammering it, and journalists seem to be covering it now because the Clintons and others are making noise about it, but there's still no there there. I don't even think the journalists covering it understand what the heck the charges are (Bob Novak who writes for the Sun-Times had an editorial on it the other day, and I still can't figure out the point, and I don't think he does either other than rumors about something bad about the Democratic frontrunner....). I'm not worried, I don't think Obama's staff is either, I think it's just one more desperate distraction rying to find one skeleton in Obama's closet that might make up for the 50 in the Clinton closet (which, I'm sure if Hillary wants to keep going, we'll start hearing more about).

Of course, the press is arguing that they're merely reporting what the campaign says - which is true. However, that's not what journalists are expected to do - merely act as stenographers - they're expected to do a bit of fact checking as well. If they're going to write "Clinton campaign says Rezko connections should be examined" they should then follow up and determine if there are any inappropriate connections. The Chicago Tribune reported on this subject, in depth, in the past; is there anything new, or just, as I asked above, more unfounded innuendo?

Posted by: bsimon | March 4, 2008 02:32 P
**********************************
Thank you, bsimon! That paragraph is the center of my disgust with the press from even back during the run-up to the Iraq war. A bunch of f*cking stenographers or applicants for White House press secretary. Rare is the real reporter. And the beat goes on: try to disprove an accusation that was not proven.

"This is not a prediction, its just the truth. Its over, Clinton has it. And its all uphill for Obama from here on in."

How the heck do you figure? Hillary still has to make up about 160 pledged delegates, with only about 600 left up for grabs, the overwhelming majortiy of which will be split just by the nature of the contests and where they are (do you expect a 70-30 Hillary victory in Mississippi?). Hillary is looking at best at a split in delegates today, possibly even a loss (VT covers RI, Obama probably wins the delegates in TX offsetting Ohio if Clinton wins there). What is her path to winning? she has to convince the superdelegates to vote against the pledged delegates total, and I really don't see that happens. Cook today said in her rosiest scenario, Hillary could close the gap to an 80pt deficit in pledged delegates (which assumes her winning 80% in Puerto Rico just to show how rosy the scenario is...), so she'd have to expand her current lead on supers to overcome the gap. I just don't see it happening.

Folks from now on, Obama-Rezko housing scandal will take front page story every day until general election. Voters like it or not. Even Obama official representative is attending and taking notes at the court hearings.

With all the momemtum and voter excitements, Obama should be up by at least 15% over candidate like McCain. Unfortunately, that's not the case. McCain is already up by few points over Obama on few polls.

The issue of media bias in favor of Hillary Clinton has been almost entirely overlooked.
Check out "The Washington Post" website right now and there are three lead political stories about Senator Clinton, including "Contests offer Clinton a chance to narrow gap." This has been true during the previous several weeks, as there have usually been noticeably more lead stories about Clinton in "The Washington Post" and "New Yorj Times" websites. This bias is blatant and obvious to any impartial observer.

Another unreported story is how lingering racism is hindering Senator Obama's quest for the nomination. Does anyone seriously doubt that at least 10-15% of voters for Senator Clinton, will not vote for an African American for president? This is a more valid issue than the bogus issue of purported sexism, which if Barack had not been a candidate, would not be brought up by anyone, because Barack is the only candidate who can defeat Hillary for the nomination.

Clinton will probably win Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island tonight, but not by enough to make much of a difference in delegates, especially since Vermont's margin for Obama will likely squash Rhode Island's margin for Obama, plus a few delegates.

Clinton will get a huge wave of support, the media will fawn over her for being Comeback Kid II and everything will be happily ever after. Right?

Oh wait, tomorrow, after the smoke clears, Obama will announce he raised $50-70 million last month, he'll announce a few dozen new superdelegates that are coming out for him and people, including the ever-reluctant pundits and strategists, will realize he still has an absolutely commanding delegate lead (considering how many are left) and it is virtually impossible in any scenario for Clinton to overtake Obama in the pledged delegate lead.

Newsweek ran an article today about how Clinton could win the next 16 primaries and caucuses - all of the remaining contests - and she'd still be behind by about 50-60 pledged delegates. She's done for, no matter how badly the media wants her to come back.

The narrative of the day may favor Clinton, but when reality sets in by late Wed or Thurs that the delegate gap has not closed (or maybe even widened), meanwhile the remaining pledged delegates available have signficantly decreased, it will be clear that anyhting that happened was too little, too late. Add to that the fact that the Clinton staff wrote off February on the grounds that they'd make it up with big wins today, people will reexamine their moving of the goalposts and really turn a much more critical look at the Clinton camp, and that whole "we're winning the states that matter" just isn't gonna fly. 50 supers waiting in the wings to endorse Obama, how many come out tomorrow?

On the street team it's probably a pretty even split with a slight leaning toward the liberal side, which is fair considering we're all young men and women who are either in college or fairly recent grads (I'm 25, graduated two years ago).

But people who are educated in journalism and aren't just hack bloggers all agree that truth and honesty trumps our personal beliefs 100% of the time. I've never written a piece for a professional venue that wasn't truthful and honest to my greatest capacity.

There's a lot of hubbub about the "media bias" but in reality, there are 45,000 college grads every year from journalism programs in the United States and probably 44,000 of them are solid, honest and dependable journalists who go to the greatest extent possible to remove their personal bias from their reporting. All people, not just journalists, have a bias. The trick is to recognize it and keep it in a cage when you're reporting.

I know when I'm writing a pro-Obama blog, but I also know how to reject loaded words and slanted sources when I'm writing a piece that intends to be truthful and honest (which I think is more important than being fair and balanced - if 90% of the public thinks one thing and 10% thinks another, it's not fair or balanced to write a story giving each side 50% of the quotes and opinions, though many media outlets attempt to always do 50/50 reporting regardless).

However what people need to realize is that journalists don't have the final say on their stories. No matter how biased a journalist might be, the vast majority of PUBLISHERS, that is to say the people who have the final say 100% of the time, are almost always conservative businessmen. Everything you read goes through the publisher's filter. And surveys of the journalism profession have shown that publishers are roughly 60% Republican, the last time I saw a survey taken (about three years ago).

"I say if Hillary wins Ohio and gets a good amount of the delegates out of Texas she should stay in - I think Penn will be a major defeat for Obama - people are slowing seeing he is an empty skirt.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

Posted by: bobbywc | March 4, 2008 04:08 PM
"

Not you to bobby. Man.:)

Quick question though. Did you hear about the story that obama has 50 super delegates ready to announce for him next week? It's impossible for her to win. Please don't lose faith now. after all we've fought for

The media as thrown todays elections to Hillary by their relentless bashing of Obama over the past few days, the mean culprits are the scums at the Chicago sun-times and Tribune which have made a non story about Rezko into a major deal. Those bastards have decide they'll tear Obama down at all cost. Guess what you media scums, Obama is still going to be president!

"I think it is hilarious that both factions of Dem's (ones who support Obama and ones who support Billary) have accused Republicans of "sabotaging" their respective candidate by lining up to vote for the other."

Good point, My dad is working against her, and "Republicans for Obama" is counter-acting him. And we (R's) all get blamed.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 4, 2008 03:32 PM
"

fOR SABOTAGE, YES. you will get blamed and should. Would you old cow fok whine and complain if the shoe was on the other foot? I'm not doing that.

In regards to this statements from a gop sabotuer. What is the differance? It's a big differance.

The group voting for obama has become disallusioned with their party. they are no longer republcains. Maccain does not represent them so they go elsewhere. COME ON DOWN. The more the better.

Contrast that with the clinton rush limbaugh ann coulter republcians. they have no candidate. All they are left with is sabotage. Lie spin and discredit. Destroy the system. they show their traitor faces. Rather than just doing what us liberals did for all these years, and sit out as we were not represented, they sabotage the process.

That is the differance and it is huge. Of course these are generalities. I'm sure some clinton supporters hate maccain and think clinton is the best republcain running. I'm sure there are republcains who are still republcains just think obama is nice or trust worthy and will vote.

I do have a problem with the rush limbaugh ann coulter sabotuers trying to break the process. Anyone would. But they are fascist sell-out traitors. All the power they had is gone now. Not because of obama, but themselves. No accountability or credibility. That will destroy ya quick.

Do what you will gop sabotuers. You cannot win. You have already lost. Now get back in the basement for a generation and enjoy the irrelevance you've earned.

don't vote until you are represented. Or sabotage. Risk/reward game you play gop. think about the future. Choosing party of outside influecne (money or low taxes) over the will and good of the country is treason. THIS WILL BACKFIRE ON YOU AND EVERYONE WHO EMPLOYS SABOTAGE.

The last attempt of a scared sad people. I wish you would do the patriotic thing and enjoy your irrelevance. But you would have to be patriotis to think of yoru country and do what's best for it, right. That's not the gop's mo. they are invested in detroying america for personal profit. if that's not treason what is?

dave writes
"bsimon, The MSM did not make Rezko a story a months ago and thus, the no traction of the story then."

Dave, we discussed the story here serveral times, most recently a couple weeks ago, when Mark in Austin pointed out an old Chicago Tribune story about the Rezko-Obama relationship. The article in question was from quite some time ago - more than a year if I recall correctly. Mark's question was what happened to the story. More recently, the Tribune had endorsed Obama, writing that the Rezko thing wasn't a big deal. Keep in mind, this is from the news source that originally broke the story.

So... to repeat my point. Is there new news regarding the Rezko-Obama relationship? or is the media being led around by the Clinton campaign & trying to publish some 'dirt' on Obama where there's no news to report? If the guy takes bribes, put it out there, so voters can make an informed decision (which would presumably be to not vote for him). To put it another way: Where's the beef?

This is not a prediction, its just the truth. Its over, Clinton has it. And its all uphill for Obama from here on in. Its all too iffy in this country to elect a virtual unknown nod matter how he sounds. One mistake and McCain will be our pres...you want that? Its over people. The doubt that Hilary was trying to plant has been planted and it has sprouted. Texas, R.I., and Ohio, Clinton! and maybe even a shot at left wing Vermont.

USMC Mike writes
"Despite what you aparently believe, Hillary Clinton doesn't control the media. She doesn't "drive new coverage", as you say."

What I said was the Clinton campaign has been very effective at manipulating the news cycle. For instance, yesterday two big newspapers (NYT & LAT) had articles on how the Clinton campaign is suffering from internal turmoil. This kind of story had the potential to take over the news cycle. The Clinton campaign, in the conference call that Chris covered here, at The Fix, didn't mention the stories & instead promoted the illogical claim that an ad released last Friday had affected polls released yesterday (Monday). This is extremely unlikely, as polling organizations typically conduct polls over several days & are unlikely to have started conducting polls late enough that respondents had actually seen the '3AM' ad and finish the polls in time to publish before the Clinton call on Monday. Yet, the journalists dutifully reported this 'news' - bumping the NYT & LAT stories out of the news cycle - which also served to generate more exposure for their '3 AM' ad. As I said earlier, its a brilliant strategy.

Here is a good link to a spreadsheet on actual votes cast (not by candidate) in high population districts in TX. HRC didn't start major movement back in polls until this weekend. The early voters [which are quite substantial according to the spreadsheet]will actually help BHO unlike in Cali other Sup. Tues. states.

The media really went light on Hillary this past week. For every one article about Obama, I would see three or four for Hillary. And they were generally favorable articles. I guess the press felt the need to bend over backwards so as not to be accused of media bias... but I'd say you guys just bent over. I believe it was a deliberate attempt to mix up the primary a bit, take some of the momentum away from Obama, and keep this nightmare going for a few more months. Really a disservice to us Democrats. We needed this to be done.

Back in November my mother (81 years old, bless her) said she thought Clinton was peaking too soon. She was right and Obama came on like gang busters soon after.

Now I'd say Clinton is peaking too soon again if it turns out there isn't much behind her campaign's allegations about Obama. He will have been "vetted" with weeks to go before Pennsylvania; plenty of time to fight back. These weeks also include smaller-state primaries where he is more likely to set up a winning streak again. Plus, he will continue to be ahead in delegates. There is no sane math that shows Clinton can possibly get back in the delegate lead.

Regarding those allegations:
(1) Canada-NAFTA -- already shown there is nothing there;
(2) Rezko -- may be nothing there but we won't know either way before November (we already know that the prosecutors, who have worked on this for years, have said they have nothing on Obama);
(3) Muslim -- give me a break.

If Hillary ends up winning the popular vote in 3/4 of the states tonight, I expect to see the media pendulum swing back against her. She seems to have been successful in recent weeks in playing the victim and making the coverage against Obama more aggressive, but recent articles seem to suggest that it will go the other way. The Roger Simon's piece on Politico is a good example of this.

I also hope whatever happens that the media starts talking about the near impossibility of her winning. Look at the delegate count and assume that she wins all the rest of the states, though extremely unlikely, she still comes up short on the delegate count.

Obama was a "main newsmaker" in 48.1% of the 397 stories surveyed. Hillary was the main newsmaker in 46.6%. That's not a significant difference. The difference between the two candidates is in the "significant presence" status, where Obama led Clinton 20.9% to 11.6%. That accounts for almost all of the difference in coverage between the two. My guess is that Obama was mentioned in articles about McCain, because there's more reason to discuss a McCain/Obama race than a McCain/Clinton race.

According to the chart in the article, Obama and Clinton had approximately the same media coverage until February 11. In other words, once Obama started winning all the primaries, he got more media coverage. That makes perfect sense; it's hardly evidence of media bias.

The MSM did not make Rezko a story a months ago and thus, the no traction of the story then. The occurance of the trial as well as the MSM starting to actually examine Obama and his record is what is generating the current coverage. As to unfounded innuendo, what part of the story is that? It seems to me that Sun Times should be a reliable source.

"Obama has collected at least $168,308 from Rezko and his circle. Obama also has taken in an unknown amount of money from people who attended fund-raising events hosted by Rezko since the mid-1990s.

But seven months ago, Obama told the Sun-Times his "best estimate" was that Rezko raised "between $50,000 and $60,000" during Obama's political career.

Burton said Obama can only estimate how much money Rezko has raised for him. Obama's staff, he said, only knows of one fund-raiser Rezko hosted for Obama -- a June 27, 2003, cocktail party at Rezko's mansion.

Sources close to both Rezko and Obama, however, said Rezko raised money often for Obama. "

There are numerous other stories on him and Rezko (one of the architects of his entry into political office). He is not just a small time doner - he is (was) a lot more important in the life and career of Obama than that. That is what makes it news. And HRC campaign is only echoing the feelings of many about the media's Obama love-fest. That was not an original thought on her part.

It is just another example of Senator Barack Obama proving, that despite the relentless attacks from Senator Hillary Clinton he will only respond to clarify, and not resort to what can only be described as evil. This may sound dramatic but if despite the truth, despite the damage that could be devastating to a person, it is so natural that it is hard to buy this heartfelt commitment to the likes of us. Funny when she says that he has to be vetted because she already has been, (does not matter that this means that we already are aware of so much that is so negative and people have no qualms voting for her for President), and so few in the meeting will point this out because either they are afraid of appearing biased or they are biased. If Senator Barack Obama does not succeed it will be because of that message that the people were so receptive to regarding the forces that interfere with the implementing of crazy crazy ideas like education. Giving credit to anyone but Senator Barack Obama for the excitement and participation in this election is not warranted. I doubt those who responded will care very much in the future because if an absolutely corrupt politician and person can continue without someone or many in the party strongly setting the record straight so that the playing field is as fair as possible they are equally to blame. The future does not look good for those Senator Clinton claims she stays up all night fighting for because that is implausible based on what cannot be disputed is her dubious character. Sad.

"I think it is hilarious that both factions of Dem's (ones who support Obama and ones who support Billary) have accused Republicans of "sabotaging" their respective candidate by lining up to vote for the other."

Good point, My dad is working against her, and "Republicans for Obama" is counter-acting him. And we (R's) all get blamed.

I found it very interesting that HRC continues to proclaim her readiness and expertise in handling foreign policy issues, and yet Obama won the Democrats Abroad primary with 65% of the vote. It is quite telling, and worth analysis, that Americans living overseas recognize the potential Obama has for restructuring the image of America internationally.

I think it is hilarious that both factions of Dem's (ones who support Obama and ones who support Billary) have accused Republicans of "sabotaging" their respective candidate by lining up to vote for the other.

I first blogged for Obama before he announced and many of you here laughed at me. On February, 19 I voted early in Texas and chose not to vote for either of them. Tonight at 7:15 I will caucus for Hillary. Why?

ABout a month ago upon closer look I realized Obama is a myth. His campaign is just a repeat of Ronald Reagans - "Smile, be happy." I cannot help but wonder how much better we would be today had we listen to President Carter and bit the bullet on oil and gas and so many othe issues. Reagan's retort was always teh same "There he goes again." Obama is the same - Hope and Change - it is a BS campign

I am convinced that before November people will realize the mistake of voting for Obama and McCain will win. Hillary can only go uphill from here and that is why I voted for her.

VA MEDICAL CARE UPDATE - FOR THOSE WHO CARE: VA SAN ANTONIO

Did you know if you call the Inspector General for the Veterans' Administration the option for Veteran's to file a complaint is #7 - 1-6 are for everyone but Veterans - what does it say about the OIG for the VA when veterans have to listen to 6 other options before they get to access the office they are calling.

The VA serves veterans, but we are number 7 on the list to file a complaint.

Last Wednesday I was told by a doctor in training for the 5th time that the request was being made for my physical therapy for my arms and legs (THE 5TH TIME). Today I received a phone call from the women who prepares the paperwork complaining that I was complaining nothing was getting done. She then told me she would not be issuing the paperwork because the doctors in training have yet to make the request.

I am now suing in hopes a federal judge will order the VA to do its job - I am not asking for money - just a court order that someone, preferably a trained monkey - put in the paperword for my physical therapy.

bsimon, you got to it before I did, but CC seems to be saying with his quote above that the coverage of Obama was more critical over this time period than previously.

In my mind, it is just the outcome of Obama moving from a challenger role to a frontrunner role. And Mike, that fits perfectly with the timeline -- the win in Wisconsin is a pretty clear marker for Obama moving into the frontrunner spot.

"My Father and his wife, both R's, voted for HRC this afternoon. They aparently have been convincing others in Dallas to do the same. Many did not comply.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 4, 2008 03:15 PM
"

Congrats. Sabotage is funny for traitors. HE he. ha ha.

think about the future. play your games all you want. It will come back on you next time. good luck next time. When it's close. When your party had 8 years to build. the street will run both ways. Don't complain in 8 years.

Well see usmc mike, won't we. We'll see how many people are like you. I'm betting people have been fooled long enough.

Dittoheads are such, for a reason. they have to be. Don't hate the dittoheads. help them. when they know what is really going on they will turn and eat their own. Who likes being lied to? If your son or grandson died, over a lie, would you be angry? I would. The dittoheads are already turning on their cult master. It's a waiting game.

Make no mistake. Not only can the rush's and fox's not win over the long term, they already lost

CC, question. Are there 'early boxes' in Ohio or TX that would give some indication of where things stand?

I've said this before. HRC will not get out (and I'm a BHO supporter) until the Rezco trial is over in June. She was even quoted saying today that my husband didn't lock up the nomination until June. Fact is, as long as her fundraising is going, there's no reason for her to get out. There are too many loose ends with Rezco that BHO must and should refute with facts. His line that he made a 'bonehead move' is plain and simple HONEST, something HRC cannot claim in her convaluted responses to cattle futures and Whitewater and many other scandals that plagued her. HRC knows, however, how brutal Chicago politics can be. Aren't the Rodhams from there? If BHO can face down Fitzgerald (who takes no sides...look what he did to Libby)...and he's not on any witness lists and the innuendo associated with the Iraqi financier to Rezko, he will be battle ready to take on and beat McCain. BHO's supporters will be tested in the coming weeks to see how strongly they stand by their man. He's honest enough to admit he made a mistake. HRC and WJC will never do that unless physical evidence (blue dress) is put in their face.

The thing about Rezko, as the Sun Times has pointed out, is that Reps in Illinois stand to lose also because many Reps were in bed with him too in the pension scandal. That's what's kept the coverage so low. No one in Chicago wants this being broadcast because it's going to take down careers on the Dem and Rep sides.

""Cut the head off the snake and it dies. Rush, O'liely, hannity,, savage, fox, boortz, beck."

Heh, Rufus--

Your list gets longer every time.

I'll expect a 100-most-dangerous-person book from you soon.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 4, 2008 03:06 PM
"

nO NEED. They are not MY enemies. They are americas. They are on front street already. all I have to do is wait. They can't keep this up forever. Without a place to consolidate lies and smears your party of foot tapping hypocrites is done. No disresepct intended of course. :)

I can go outsdie and say the sky is red all day. I lose credibility. I would eb viewed as a crazy person. You propogandists have zero credibility. Even you would have to acknowledge that, you would say msnbc cnn and others have no credibility with you.

The gop is backward. Where lying and falsehoods build credibility witht eh cult. eventually that catches up to you. And it will them.

I just don't think there is a good enough explanation for 7 out of 10 with no votes."

Mike, I scrolled up, to review the quote's context. Here's another relevant paragraph, where Chris continues to quote the guy who came up with the '7 out of 10' number:

"The media scrutinized everything from his legislative record to his connections to Louis Farrakhan, and frequently addressed the question of whether journalists have been too soft on the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination," writes Rosenstiel.

So, what we're seeing here is the Clinton campaign claiming that Obama gets the 'kid glove' treatment from the media. The media obligingly repeats this story & the irrelevant Farrakhan endorsement, the no-new-news news from the Rezko trial, and the misreported meeting about NAFTA in Canada. Now the complaint is that 'there are too many stories about Obama'.

Its a brilliant strategy, that people like yourself appear to be falling for - the Clinton campaign sets up the story by claiming media undercoverage of Obama, driving new coverage of Obama, then complains about overcoverage. You're, like the media itself, being led around like bull with a nosering.

Also quick news flash for the fixites, or whatever you are calling yourselves these days.:)

Melanie Morgan, the gossip opinion radio braodcaster, has been pulled off the air. Due to gossip and heresay about MR. george soros. She made false allegations about the man.

What I don't get is why these people aren't yanked daily, all daily. It's not a free speech issue. It's a credibility issue. What is a jouranlist without any credibility? a propopgandist? If they are professing fasist principles? a fascist propgoandist?

In a self -government we need all the real news we can get. With as little gossip heresay and lies as possible.

One down a million to go. Cut the head off the snake and it dies. Rush, O'liely, hannity,, savage, fox, boortz, beck.

"The media will ignore the way her huge leads crumbled over the weeks leading up to the votes & instead republish the campaign spin that she's renewed her momentum."

bsimon -- this may be true.

But the two points aren't mutually exclusive.

Obama shouldn't make the news just by opening his mouth.

He's not President (yet), no matter how much his fawning press corps wants him to be.

I just don't think there is a good enough explanation for 7 out of 10 with no votes. Regardless of that information coming from Clinton, from Hannity, or from God, it is what it is - evidence of pro-Obama bias.

If Gravel made any news that surpassed the news from Obama and Clinton, then yes. But tens of millions of people care about Obama, a few million fewer care about Clinton, and another ten million fewer care about McCain. It's just the way it is...and on top of this, Obama is generating the most significant news.

Like someone else said, journalism isn't saying "Wolfson said Obama is stupid, so we're going to say it's accurate..." or "Penn says Hillary has a chance so it must be true!" damn the math that says otherwise...

Right simon. Why is it before every single election there is a controversy involving clinton? Or the media is attacking her. Or the boys are picking on her and made her cry. It worked once. It gets old every single time. I pray nobody's buying any of it.

Why worry about wha tthe american people think when you can just create your own narative? It's a risk/reward game. I suggest everyone who thinks the media is bias, find a non bias source. give them your ratings and money and respect as they have earned it with credibility. To the propogandists. There is only one way they learn. IRRELEVANCE. NO MONEY. NO RATINGS. Then they change. not before then. There's money in attacks smears gossip and opinion as news. But it's a risk reward game. they risk consequences. To NOT give them the consequences to their risk does them no favors. And they will never change. Like at fox, as long as they make money they are happen. Their job and profession and the fourth branch of government has been bought out. But we can get it back. If we are strong and smart enough.

How is Obama not 'facing' the Rezko situation different from Hillary not releasing her White House Papers or Tax Statements?

If the voters have a right to answers from Obama, shouldn't HRC be held accountable as well?

It seems that ever since SNL decided to take it upon themselves to adhere to biased media while claiming to in fact blow the whistle on bias media, news sources have lost focus and have now started holding good ol' Hill to a lesser degree of accountability.

I think you're falling for a Clinton campaign talking point. They are doing a fantastic job at managing the media cycle. Their pre-results spin for TX & OH have already reestablished expectations that she's still in the race if she squeaks out a win in one of those states. The media will ignore the way her huge leads crumbled over the weeks leading up to the votes & instead republish the campaign spin that she's renewed her momentum.

Please enlighten me on the news YOu watch that is bias? If you dare. Fox rush? Savage hannity? They're bias agaisnt clinton? Ok.

they're for obama? HAHAHAHAHAHA

I can't see you dittohead sheep watching msnbc or cnn. Wouldn't that destroy your small world perspective. Us liberals can watch the fascists at fox and laugh. You close minded people cannot. That is the differance. And that is why yoru party is done, along with no credibility and accountability.

you dittoheads are peering through a small window. the rest of us are not even in the building.how could you possibly win? Your in a catch 22. Watch the news and yoru small world is destroyed. Do not and you don't know what you are talking about, as you are getting "news" from paid propogandists paid to lie to you. Not only can you not win, you have already lost.

Answer if you can. What sources are bias for obama that you've seen? Or are you just rejuritating what you hear gop whining propoganidsts say?

Where are the Clinton tax returns? If Rezko is a problem, Hsu is but one of many for Hillary and Bill. Amd what about the blank reply on her vast foreign policy experience when an aide was questioned in reference to the phone--or should I said phoney ad.

I'll always stand by the fact, as a career journalist first and a Democrat second, that the media is to report the news, not create it, balance it or filter it.

The most timely and significant news is, and has been for a month, the story of Obama's bipartisan support, his record-breaking fundraising and his ability to inspire, which isn't just rhetoric - go to one of his 20,000-person speeches and you'll see the inspiration.

Clinton is not creating news, other than that she's losing. It is not WaPo or CNN's job to be "fair" to the candidates. Truth and accuracy come before fairness. An element of fairness should be in every story, but giant puff pieces should not be written about someone who isn't doing well because that is slanting the real news on the ground, which always takes priority. Michelle Obama's comments were news. The Rezko thing was news for a while, but at this point the situation is irrelevant to the actual campaign because Rezko's money is now in charity and he has been entirely disconnected from Obama and his campaign. Yet the media clings to it like it's necessary to say something negative about Obama, even if they manufacture the critique, every time Clinton loses, lies or screws something up.

We all see it. The MSM goes out of their way to "balance" every negative story by attacking all of the candidates, while praising all of the candidates in positive pieces. If the news favors one candidate, they won't report it without saying something negative about them too, even if they have to essentially make it up or editorialize to a large extent.

The latest case of this was with the lobbyist story on WaPo a few days ago. They pointed out that Clinton and McCain have taken millions from lobbyists and employ many of them on their campaigns, and then they tried to lump Obama in with the crowd by saying he was advised by Tom Daschle, who isn't a registered lobbyist but "occasionally" advises other senators on political issues.

So somehow Obama is the same as Clinton and McCain in regards to lobbying? Because he was advised by someone who advises people and isn't, and has never been, a lobbyist? I was ashamed of WaPo that day. The job of journalists is to tell the honest truth first and "play nice" second.

Right now the honest truth is that Clinton is spinning everything faster than Michael Jordan with a basketball, while Obama continues to stay on message, attract new voters to his coalition and present his campaign in a positive light.

wOLFSON THIS. And wolston that. It's funny how all the people who would take what rove said and produce it as "news" are the same people who are taking wolfson's and other clinton campaign heads, notes for them. At least cc shows his face. As do blitzer dobbs, that guy after olberman, matthews, and on and on

fyi

"New study shows: Media bias -- against Obama?
by GregMitch
Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:55:49 AM PST
Yes, the Clinton campaign's "working the refs" seems to have worked. The much-respected Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ), which has been charting mainsteam campaign coverage every week, is out with its latest today, and it finds that, indeed, Obama did get more attention that Hillary in the past week -- but much of it negative.

Almost 70% of stories focused on Obama, compared with 58% related to Clinton. But the Obama coverage was more critical and in-depth, the survey revealed, stating: "The media scrutinized everything from his legislative record to his connections to Louis Farrakhan, and frequently addressed the question of whether journalists have been too soft on the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination."

The review also stated, "Hillary Clinton's complaints about a pro-Barack Obama media tilt helped prompt examinations of Obama's record and catapulted him to a first-place finish in the competition for media exposure."

We received the study -- which is titled, "Press Takes a Harder Look at Obama -- and Itself" this morning at Editor & Publisher (where I serve as editor).

GregMitch's diary :: ::
The survey, which tallied stories between Feb. 25 and March 2, reviewed coverage from 48 media outlets, including 13 newspapers ranging from the likes of The Washington Post to the Chattanooga (Tenn.) Times Free Press. Other details from the survey:

"Two converging factors may have contributed to the tenor of Obama coverage last week--the Clinton campaign's increasing complaints about media bias and journalists' sense that with Obama now a clear frontrunner, the time was right for a more thorough scrubbing," the report stated.

"It is also possible, as well, that the narrative about a faltering Clinton campaign had become familiar."

Then there was this revealing finding: "When the media weren't vetting Obama's record, they were questioning their own treatment of him."

Elsewhere, "Next to the campaign, the U.S. economy--staggering under more negative indicators, and stock market plunges--was the second-biggest story last week, filling 7% of the newshole as measured by the News Coverage Index ," the report said.

"That was followed by the conflict in Afghanistan (3%), where the news that England's Prince Harry had been stationed there was the driving factor. Next came events inside Iraq (3%) and the Academy Award ceremonies, also at 3%."

Polls indicated that Clinton has rebounded and may even be surging in Ohio and Texas, with the new media "tilt" or at least new balancing act perhaps a factor. She appeared on Saturday Night Live this week and The Daily Show last night.
*
My ninth book, So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq (Union Square Press) has just been published this week. It features a foreword by Joe Galloway and preface by Bruce Springsteen.
*
You can find PEJ study at: http://www.journalism.org
*
I blog at: http://gregmitchellwriter.blogspot.com/

"

Edwards: "We cannot exchange bush's cronies for ours."

Were the heck is edwards and his support now? Maybe after today he will be the white knight. :)

USMC_Mike writes
"So, by virtue of his greatness, he just deserves the attention?

(HINT: Number of primaries or caucuses between Feb 25 and March 2: ZERO)"

Good catch. I noticed that limited date range after posting. However, the point stands. Doesn't it make sense that the candidate winning 11 races in a row is going to get more coverage? I think Gravel is still in the race - does he have a plausible complaint to make that he should get equal coverage as the other candidates?

"How about we see Hillary's tax returns and then discuss connections."

That's the thing. Because the Obama campaign isn't flinging such mud, the press isn't focusing on the issue. On the other hand, the Clinton campaign has been talking about Rezko & building up the 'Obama is unvetted' meme, so the press is apparently obliging & writing stories repeating the Clinton campaign allegations.

Of course, the press is arguing that they're merely reporting what the campaign says - which is true. However, that's not what journalists are expected to do - merely act as stenographers - they're expected to do a bit of fact checking as well. If they're going to write "Clinton campaign says Rezko connections should be examined" they should then follow up and determine if there are any inappropriate connections. The Chicago Tribune reported on this subject, in depth, in the past; is there anything new, or just, as I asked above, more unfounded innuendo?

I enjoy your blog and always try to catch your commentary on TV. I was wondering if you could help me find any information about what has been going on in the Obama campaign in TX and Ohio over the past 10 days or so. I have seen lots of clips about Clinton,her new "momentum" and I've heard a lot of nasty smear and innuendo about Obama, I've heard Cathy Crowley's breathless reporting on the NAFTA non-story,and even NPR has been flogging all the NAFTA and REZKO innuendo. But given the lack of any actual COVERAGE of Obama's campaign or any interviews of him, I wonder if he took this past weekend off? Or maybe he has the flu? I heard he had 10,000 people at a rally in TX over the weekend, just down the street from where Hillary could only corral about 2000 - but how do I know if thats true, bec. it certainly didn't make a national channel on my TV. Also, given that Hillary has pretty much dominated the airways lately with SNL and Jon Stewart, why do you think she decided not to do the major Sunday morning shows? Would love to hear your answers.

This Rezko thing is irritating. He donated money to Obama, he got busted, Obama denounced him (or rejected, or denounced and rejected him) and gave the money to charity. In my mind, the story is over. How about we see Hillary's tax returns and then discuss connections. I suspect that if she had nothing to hide, she would have released them already!

Can someone explain to me what the Clintons are trying to say happened with Rezko? Also, can someone explain to me how the media doesn't laugh when the Clintons talk about this? Haven't they had more than their fair share of fundraising issues?

I'm bored with Clinton and her campaign tactics. I was even a staunch supporter of hers only about six months ago. And no, I'm not lying about this, I'm not a Republican troll and I'm not trying to spread misinformation.

But the kinds of things she has done have made me feel like a Republican in the 90s. I wasn't very involved in politics and for years I've been dumbfounded as to why the GOP has hated the Clinton name so much since he was in office.

I'm reluctant to say, but now I see why the right wing has hated the Clintons so intensely for so long. I'm not saying the Clintons are worse than many Republicans (Rove is infinitely worse than Wolfson, Penn or Ickes) but man, I've really started to see the evil side of their campaign. They want to declare war on the Republican Party.

They are the fiercest of partisan hacks. They see everything as "with us or against us" which is the EXACT attitude that the Democrats hate - about George W. Bush! How could we ever turn around and nominate our own version of Dubya? Well, we could nominate Clinton. If we do that, this will be a mirror image of the past seven years. Half the country hates the president, half the country loves him (though only 30% love Bush right now). Do we really want to go down that path, again?

Clinton is continually recycling old rumors and campaign tactics, hoping that at some point she'll get lucky and voters will start listening to her.

Fortunately that's not happening. No matter how you cut it, Obama is going to win tonight, even if he loses Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas. He has polled down in all three states by more than 20 points for the entirety of the past 12 months and now he's within a few points in Texas and fewer than 5-6 points in Ohio.

Unfortunately for him, the media - buying directly into Clinton's campaign rhetoric - has decided they need to heavily favor Clinton for the past two weeks, even though she LOST ELEVEN CONTESTS IN A ROW AND IS BEHIND IN EVERY POPULAR VOTE AND PLEDGED DELEGATE COUNT ON THE RECORD. There has been ZERO public motivation for the media's new attempt to spin the campaign. All I can see is that the media, which is driven by money, which is driven by ads, which are watched by more eyes in tight elections, wants to give Clinton a huge boost so the candidates keep buying ad time by the millions.

Can you imagine the money CNN is making off of this campaign? Every single contentious primary night on CNN rakes in millions worth of advertising dollars that would normally be wasted on pathetic Tuesday night news breaks. The best story is no longer the huge surge of bipartisan momentum and support that the voters are throwing behind Obama. His fundraising hasn't slowed and his popularity hasn't waned, but if you watch/read the news, they'd have you think that all of the sudden everyone loves Clinton.

She's playing the victim role while unleashing the hugest attacks this campaign season has seen to date. How can she be the victim when every day she throws a bigger pile of mud at Obama, while he simply shrugs it off and refuses to engage her?

This must be what she meant when she said she was getting to the "fun part" of campaigning by getting dirty and smearing her opponents. I should have known the media would cave in to the slimy mudslinger over the true voice of optimism in this campaign season.

All I can say is that I'm glad the voters haven't given in to it...yet.

Chris, has the Clinton campaign pointed to any new information about the relationship between Rezko & Obama, or are they merely enjoying the timing of the trial's start in order to repeat the unfounded innuendo they tried (and failed to make stick) months ago?